than the prior and sub-prior of the monastery. And the only reality in the case was a painful one, for Jetzer had a nail driven quite through his hand, while receiving from the supposed saints the marks of Christ. That the popish church has exhibited many wonders to support her claims, will not be denied; but we shall have occasion to see, in the sequel, that they are lying wonders, and cunning craftiness, whereby her votaries have lain in wait to deceive. So much, then, for the claims of popery to divine origin, and divine authority.

SECTION IV.

EXAMINATION OF HISTORICAL

TESTIMONY RELATIVE

TO THE SUPREMACY OF THE BISHOP OF ROME DURING THE FIRST SIX CENTURIES.

THE origin of the church of Rome is involved in doubt. We have no authentic record to determine by whom it was gathered, or who was its first pastor. Scripture is silent on this point, which silence is indeed conclusive proof that this church was not destined by the Saviour to any pre-eminence in his visible kingdom, much less that it was destined to that absolute supremacy which it has since assumed. But whatever obscurity may rest upon the origin of this church, two points are very clear, viz. 1. We have no satisfactory evidence that Peter gathered the church of Rome; and, 2. There is no evidence that he ever was the bishop of this church. It may be admitted, for argument's sake, that Peter spent some time at Rome, and that he suffered martyrdom there in the reign of Nero. But these concessions prove nothing as to any particular connexion of Peter with the church of Rome,

either as its founder or its bishop. For Paul was also at Rome for a considerable season: he wrote an epistle to that church, and afterwards suffered martyrdom there under the same bloody Nero. If Peter then was bishop of Rome on the ground of the facts above mentioned, much more was Paul its bishop. But this would prove too much, as it would prove that the church of Rome had two supreme heads. In the absence, then, of all authentic proof, we are authorized to deny that the church of Rome was gathered by Peter, or that he was its bishop. And the burden of proof will rest on those who set up arrogant claims, as the successors of Peter, and whose prerogatives rest solely on the proof they bring. Let them prove, if they can, that the bishops or popes of Rome are the successors of Peter, and then it will be in season to talk about the power of the keys, and of absolution, if indeed Peter had any such power. But in the present state of the subject, the claims of popery, as founded on the prerogatives of Peter, are mere assumption. The bishops of Rome might with equal propriety claim, in the right of succession to Peter, supreme authority over the solar system.

In regard to the church of Rome and Peter, its supposed first bishop, very little is known during the first century, beyond what is found on sacred record. About the year 64, Rome suffered a general conflagration, which is supposed to have been the work of Nero, but which, to screen himself from public odium, he charged to Christians. On the ground of this charge the first general persecution commenced. Peter is supposed, by impartial writers, to have come to Rome the year previous. While there, he is supposed to have written his epistles; and when the persecution under Nero commenced, Peter is supposed to have been apprehended and crucified. Not a word do we find in any authentic history of this century, about the supremacy either of Peter or the church of Rome. But if that supremacy ever existed by divine

appointment, it must have existed then. Peter could not have been constituted the bishop of Rome, nor supreme head of the church, after he was dead. And if his supremacy did exist during his life, is it not unaccountable that all history should be utterly silent on the subject, that the church in the first century should have left no trace of pope Peter's reign; and that even Peter himself should have been so sparing of the pompous assumptions and dignity of his pretended successors? If Peter was, at the time he wrote his epistles, vicegerent of Christ and supreme head of the church, (and he must have been then if he ever was, for his epistles were written but a short time before his death,) is it not remarkable that we hear him saying simply "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ," instead of "We, sovereign pontiff of Rome, apostolical vicar and supreme head of the church?" It is indeed manifest, either that Peter was not conscious of his papal dignity, or he did not value it very highly, otherwise he would not have passed it in silence. For no pope of Rome ever followed his example in this particular. For though, by an affected modesty, some of the popes may have styled themselves servants, &c., yet they have always been careful to insert something in the connexion, to show that they did not mean what the words would naturally import.

But the forms of church government during the first century do not admit of any such supremacy as that ascribed to the church of Rome, or to Peter as its head. In those primitive days, each Christian church was composed of the people, the presiding officer, and the assistants or deacons. The highest authority then was in the body of believers, for even the apostles themselves inculcated by their example that nothing of moment was to be done or determined on without the concurrence of the brethren. The rulers of the church were sometimes denominated elders or presbyters, a designation borrowed from the Jews, and indicative rather of the wisdom than

the age of the persons; and sometimes bishops or overseers, for it is most manifest that both terms are promiscuously used in the New Testament for one and the same class of persons. Near the close of the first century, however, there began to be indications of some degrees of comparison among the pastors of the churches. The germ of ecclesiastical distinction and hierarchy was at first exceeding small, and is thus described by a certain author:— -"In the following manner Christians managed ecclesiastical affairs, so long as their congregations were small and not very numerous. Three or four presbyters, men of gravity and holiness, placed over these little societies, could easily proceed with harmony, and needed no head or president. But when the churches became larger, and the number of presbyters and deacons, as well as the amount of duties to be performed, was increased, it became necessary that each council of presbyters should have a president, a man of distinguished gravity and prudence, who should distribute among his several colleagues their several tasks, and be a kind of central point. He was first denominated the angel, but afterwards the bishop, (or overseer,) a term of Grecian derivation, and indicative of his principal business. But whoever supposes the bishops of the first and golden age of the church were like the bishops of the following centuries, must blend and confound characters that are very different.”

Where, it may be asked, in all this arrangement of the first century, was there room or place for his holiness the pope of Rome? If such an office, or such a title, existed in the first age of the church, how marvellous is it that we can find no trace of the matter, and that the holy apostolical vicar of Christ, who afterwards filled Europe and the world with his noise, should have then kept so entirely out of sight! But if no such office then existed, the lofty pretensions of the papists fall to the ground.

In the second century, the gradual advances of prelatical power and authority, which began to be developed towards the close of the first, were considerably increased and confirmed. As the churches multiplied and extended, it became necessary for them to meet together by their representatives for mutual consultation and united action. This gave rise to what the Greeks called SvNODS, but the Latins, COUNCILS. In these councils, of which no vestige appears before the middle of the second century, it became necessary for some one to preside, and it naturally fell to the lot of some to take the lead in the transaction of business. This, of course, gave some of the bishops a practical pre-eminence; and when once they had been elevated, it was natural for them to claim, and to endeavor to support that elevation. In this way arose, in process of time, metropolitan bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, and last of all the head of the whole, the pope of Rome. Another circumstance that served to advance the power of the hierarchy in the second century was, that after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the Jewish system was totally abolished, the idea was started that the Christian ministry was designed to be modelled after the fashion of the Jewish priesthood. To make the resemblance complete, there must be a high priest, secondary priests, and Levites. The idea could not, at the time it was started, be carried to its full extent, but it served to prepare the way for the full attainment of the object by the gradual approximation of public opinion.

In the third century the form of church government, which had been gradually introduced, was still more confirmed. We find, in this century, bishops in the principal cities in the provinces, which were esteemed chief of their province. The limits of this distinction were not, however, accurately defined, nor was the precedence always given to the bishop of the chief city. But the bishops of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria, appear to have been regarded in this century as chief men, and